SWAMYNATH S/O.MADAIH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) It is stated that on 25.11.2015, the complainant Shivanna has stated that he had brought a goat for sacrifice as many other villagers brought such goats for sacrifice to the village deity. The accused No.2, Anand's family was said to have been drying ragi in the open space and the goat started eating the ragi, on which the accused No.2 had taken offence and had struck the goat with a chopper. On 26.11.2015, at about 6.30 am, the deceased Ramesh who was returning home found accused No.2 and questioned him as to why he should be drying the ragi in the open space and as to why he had caused injury to his goat. On this the accused No.2 is said to have called accused No.1 and asked him to bring others to take care of the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 10 had come to the spot and accused No.1 was said to be holding a Karate Nun Chukkoo and had assaulted the deceased with the said Weapon. Accused No.2 had taken the said weaponfrom accused No.1 and had assaulted the deceased Ramesh on his face, while accused No.3 held him down and others started assaulting him with bricks, stones etc., all over his body. Though he was rushed to the hospital by one Suresh, he was declared brought dead. It is in this circumstance, a case has been registered against the several accused including the petitioner, who is accused No.6.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the overt acts attributed are against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against any other accused. Therefore, the bail applications of accused Nos.7 and 9 have been allowed and they have been enlarged on bail, whereas the bail application of the present petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the matter was under investigation and the petitioner could not be enlarged on bail having regard to the seriousness of the case that there was one person dead and others were injured. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner -accused No.6 and by the same token of reasoning the bail applications of accused Nos.7 and 9 were allowed, the present petitioner has to be enlarged on bail.